|
Forums >
General Industry >
Best watermarks, which watermarks do you like?
Not a thread to discuss whether or not to use them. There are many of those here on the site, though I guess I cannot stop opinions of hating them. I use them for many reasons and for a site like this I am comfortable with the choice at this time. But my watermarks are not very good. So which watermarks do you like. Try to be postive and post the ones you like as opposed to tearing people down. so to start, I like the look and effort and of course the photography that goes along with it of Bruce Talbot's watermarks. https://www.modelmayhem.com/pics.php?id=7244 Add your own of what you like, what is creative, what doe not take your eye away from the image too much, Thankyou. I will post more examples of good ones but lost some links recently. On or off of MM. If it is a nude shot make sure you just link to it. Apr 20 06 08:33 pm Link i agree wit u bruce has a really nice watermark.. mine is simly for now .. Apr 20 06 08:35 pm Link Marksora wrote: To me this is a highly distracting watermark which misses the point by leagues and shows nothing but narcissistic inclinations of the one who uses it. Apr 20 06 08:40 pm Link If I HAD to have a watermark, I like Brian Rawson's, tiny, not flashy, but still easily recognizable. Apr 20 06 11:05 pm Link I was going to vote for Bruce, but it seems as though I don't need too.  Apr 20 06 11:09 pm Link Going against popular opinion, I don't like watermarks on photos and do not recommend them at all. If the intention is to prevent theft, well, they don't work. For theft prevention it's best to make them small and register copyright. Putting a name or logo of some sort on a photos invariably damages its the image's appearance. If it must be there, then my recomendation would be to make a border either around or at the base of the image and place it there. That way it's present but does not distract from the photo, or at lease distracts less. The samples you showed, personally I find those makes to be horrible, they ruin the images. The fancy text is all I can see when I looked at the images. Apr 20 06 11:18 pm Link I like my own. Took me quite a while to even use one. I'm old school from fine arts perspective, but decided that if CNN does it, I can dot:) Apr 20 06 11:25 pm Link Is there any way of getting rid of these double posts that happen because this site is so s-l-o-w? Apr 20 06 11:25 pm Link Must agree with Mark & Doug here. Isn't the point of artistic/photographic endeavors to get to the point where people recognize your pictures because of the style, talent, and potency of capture rather than because of an obtrusive semi-transparent stamp that obscures half the image? Apr 20 06 11:26 pm Link Apr 20 06 11:26 pm Link Gothichangman's watermark is really cool. https://modelmayhem.com/member.php?id=64901 Apr 20 06 11:29 pm Link Nihilus wrote: Gotta say--get real. Of the hundreds/thousands of photographers work you see you could count on one hand who you can exactly determine who they are from their work. The watermark is advertising with a dash of ego tripping, plain and simple. Of course we art purists are not supposed to like evil advertising--right? Apr 20 06 11:31 pm Link NO..! NO.. The example.. Too distracting! Beautiful work but I want to see the IMAGE.... All of IT! "Watermarks" I feel is possibly the wrong term.. When I think of "Watermark", it's something displayed across the middle of the image to prevent the premature use of an image. I use a semi-transparent "For Preview Only" across my proof images to prevent the model/client from using them until they have been edited etc. On the finished images I place a subdued (or ghosted) "Logo" of my name/studio in an unobtusive location (bottom or side border) of the image. If the image was obtained via a TFCD session, I do place the LOGO on the image. If the image was from a session that was paid for by the model/client, I do NOT place the logo on the image. Just a way of doing things... I'm sure many photographers have variations of doing this. Watermarks (Logos) for the intent of Copy Protection? Good Luck..... Apr 20 06 11:44 pm Link Studio Yeah-Yeah wrote: So...wait. You're argument is: 'The ones who ain't got it might as well suck it up and advertise their goods with as large a logo to draw attention as possible'? Apr 20 06 11:52 pm Link Can we keep this thread constructive and not argue back and forth? Okay to state you do not like them. Noted, and noted again. Try not to argue with people. Damn start your own thread complaining about them. Or I will just be a baby and cry and bitch until this experiment gone bad is deleted. If you hate them make your own thread. If you are possesed to speak then speak and walk away. Respect the opinions of others in this thread Want to argue then go make your own cage match. Damn does every thread have to be the same damn fucking negative crap. Some like, some do not. This is a thread of those that see the need. Learning can happen from things we do not like. Hopefully, this thread will go back to the purpose so I can edit this post tomorrow. Otherwise I will complain to have it removed. Apr 21 06 02:43 am Link I just state my name, the year and cc, I know it is a bit simple but I have found it to be the most effective way. Also, I do try and change the color and positioning of the copyright to not get in the way of any of the important parts of the image, Star Apr 21 06 02:47 am Link Anha Nguyen wrote: I concur. Apr 21 06 02:50 am Link I've been trying to figure it out. But my problem is that most look like they're just slapped on top of the image. I'd like to find something that looks like it's part of the image--inobtrusive, but still noticeable. I find it easier with a plain background... Apr 21 06 02:52 am Link Studio Yeah-Yeah wrote: Yeah, just click once. Apr 21 06 02:54 am Link Anha Nguyen wrote: Brian Diaz wrote: I have seen some good ones not yet presented. Apr 21 06 03:03 am Link How can Bruce Talbots' watermark be narcissistic? It's not preventing any part of the image from being seen. Sometimes (especially off of this site) people steal photos and attempt to pass them off as their own. It's one else's photo, the photographer can do what he/she pleases. If a model wants a photo from that photographer printed out obviously it would make sense to not have to watermark on said image. However, this is the internet and things are different. "I can't focus on the photo, the watermark is a distraction" Please. Apr 21 06 03:08 am Link Nerlande wrote: Nerlande is very wise and its the same reason i have watermark Apr 21 06 03:21 am Link I agree that Bruce Talbot's watermark is a bit large and imposing for my taste. But then when I put images on photosig, almost every single image received feedback that my watermark/copyright was too big. It was this:  I've since changed it to this and have not heard anything negative about it yet:  Ask 10 people, you'll get 10 different answers. Apr 21 06 10:44 am Link Anha Nguyen wrote: Looks to me like hair got onto a negative. But I tell ya, that main images, the first time I have ever seen her, made my heart skip. wow. Apr 21 06 11:31 am Link MarkMarek wrote: Ok, gigs up. I admit it. May 03 06 04:24 pm Link May 03 06 05:05 pm Link I like James as well. So much so that I'm thinking of modifying the colors of my logo to be more subtle. But I do like mine as well. I'm open to suggestions... https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … f2c5d5d7cd May 03 06 05:21 pm Link |
